The ethics of having children in a Post-peak world

[UndercoverElephant]

This thread is supposed to be about ethics.

We're all agreed that things would be better if the population stopped growing but there is an ethical question as to how to get there. I take the view that the problem needs to be tackled at the population, rather the individual, level. Thus we should not tell an individual 'You are a bad person if you have more than 1 or 2 babies', but we should create the societal conditions in which people on average choose voluntarily to only have one or two babies.

Far too little, far too late.

I think it is unethical for an individual to be told by others how many babies to have.

In that case, I think it is unethical for individuals who have ignored the moral reasons for not having babies to be supported by the state in any way shape or form.

You are seriously trying to tell us that all humans should have the right to have as many babies as they want. This includes Chinese people. All I can say is thank God Biff Vernon isn't in control of China, because if he was then we would currently be witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe in that country.

[Ludwig]

If you are peakoil aware then it is unethical to not have children.
Being smarter then the average individual ,to remove yourself from the gene pool leaves it to people less intelligent then yourself to carry on the human line.
To give stupid people this advantage is idiocy.
Have your children, raise and educate them well so they can defeat those less capable of dealing with a energy limited world.
That way the best of humanity will survive.

What's any of that got to do with ethics?

If the stupid inherit the earth, that just shows that stupidity has an evolutionary advantage once there's nothing left for intelligent people to do.

If the intelligent don't have children and the stupid end up destoying themselves, that just shows that the human story has played itself out and it's time for some other form of life to have a try. That form of life will then almost certainly trace a similar arc of progress, decline and collapse to the human one.

Everything ends, sooner or later. Death - of the individual, of societies - is the final phase of consciousness, the final lesson that we all need to learn - humility and surrender.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ethics are a red herring. Unless you're religious, how can there be ethics?

What is religious about "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

?

[UndercoverElephant]

If the intelligent don't have children and the stupid end up destoying themselves, that just shows that the human story has played itself out and it's time for some other form of life to have a try. That form of life will then almost certainly trace a similar arc of progress, decline and collapse to the human one.

Everything ends, sooner or later.

Well, not quite everything...

[Ludwig]

Ethics are a red herring. Unless you're religious, how can there be ethics?

What is religious about "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

?

I don't completely understand that.

I admit I'm playing Devil's Advocate and on top of that am in a f***ing foul mood today, so I think I need to go out and get some fresh air.

[Prokopton]

Just want to say, if people simply don't want to talk at all about ethics that's fine with me!

Ethics are a red herring. Unless you're religious, how can there be ethics? Love and compassion are real emotions, but that's all they are: emotions, that have have helped to hold human beings together and helped them to prosper.

But ethics don't need to be based upon 'love and compassion', as I mentioned.

I'm not religious but I am philosophical and spiritual. Plenty of people discuss the basis for ethics without needing to be religious -- for example Socrates was rather keen on it.

All I mean by discussion is that when you say something like:

My point is that a personal code of ethics is pointless if it isn't shared by society at large.

... what you're doing is taking up a philosophical position that is arguable, and what you are now doing is arguing it, and that is all I mean by a discussion of ethics!

On an earlier thread I recall distinctly there was a further discussion of ethics, because someone decided to give a large sum of money back to a bank that had given it to them in error. Some agreed with the action, some disagreed, and there was talk about why -- that's not a red herring necessarily is it? It might clarify people's thoughts.

When it comes to your own positions Ludwig, they appear to be that ethics are all based on a kind of fellow feeling, that this fellow feeling can be explained in Darwinistic terms, and that helping others who will only spit in your face for it is a waste of time. Those aren't bad positions to take necessarily, but I wouldn't agree that they cover the whole of the topic of 'ethics', and on the question of whether it could be right to follow an ethic when no-one else follows it, and what that ethic would be, etc., I tend to think it is a little more open than you do.

Almost all ethics in post-Christian societies focus on what 'everyone should do', but that isn't necessarily the only basis for an ethic.

[Lord Beria3]

vtsnowedin: from my experience many highly intelligent people are incapable of accepting/adapting to PO - so I question your thesis there.

I also think it is a red herring.

Regarding our evolutionary instinct - yes it is instinctive to want to pass your genes to the next generation (although I can't say I feel it much myself) but as humans with a rational mind, we can overcome our instincts.

This is why we have developed a civilisation rather than killing each other with stones...

Depending upon your view of ethics, I would argue that having children in the knowledge that they face a high probability of starvation/malnutrition within 2/3 decades is a troubling issue.

If you think that you have a good chance of providing a secure and sound environment for your children than go for it, but surely it is only wise to think about these issues.

[DominicJ]

This is why we have developed a civilisation rather than killing each other with stones...

Not really, I turned up with iron, killed you and your sons, mated with your wives and daughters, spread my genes.

[vtsnowedin]

If you are peakoil aware then it is unethical to not have children.
Being smarter then the average individual ,to remove yourself from the gene pool leaves it to people less intelligent then yourself to carry on the human line.
To give stupid people this advantage is idiocy.
Have your children, raise and educate them well so they can defeat those less capable of dealing with a energy limited world.
That way the best of humanity will survive.

What's any of that got to do with ethics?

If the stupid inherit the earth, that just shows that stupidity has an evolutionary advantage once there's nothing left for intelligent people to do.

If the intelligent don't have children and the stupid end up destoying themselves, that just shows that the human story has played itself out and it's time for some other form of life to have a try. That form of life will then almost certainly trace a similar arc of progress, decline and collapse to the human one.

Everything ends, sooner or later. Death - of the individual, of societies - is the final phase of consciousness, the final lesson that we all need to learn - humility and surrender.

I just lost a half hours typing on my responce to this and really need to let it go for today. I'll get back to you ASAP.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ethics are a red herring. Unless you're religious, how can there be ethics?

What is religious about "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

?

I don't completely understand that.

I admit I'm playing Devil's Advocate and on top of that am in a f***ing foul mood today, so I think I need to go out and get some fresh air.

I'm pointing out that Kant's ethical maxim is based entirely on a philosophical argument and requires no religion. You don't have to be religious to have this as the foundation of what you think is the right way to behave.

[caspian]

Well, I've got to hand it to you Beria, it's a risky topic to broach. I've thought of raising it before, but chickened out after seeing the kind of hysterical reaction this kind of question tends to result in.

I'm interested in the reasons why some PO-aware people have children after they've swallowed the red pill. I can think of only three reasons: (a) they don't really believe that a collapse is likely, so they think their children will be safe, (b) they believe that a collapse will happen, but that it will be slow and relatively painless, or (c) they simply don't care ("as long as I'm dead, who cares what happens?"). I'd like to think (c) is rare, but sometimes I wonder. That would point to a very dark future indeed. The ethics would depend on what you believe will happen, but since a hard crash/collapse is a real possibility (although I don't think it's highly likely), I'd err on the side of caution.

[Lord Beria3]

I suppose there might be a d) that having prepared for collapse, they and their offspring will be alright even if everybody else is buggered.

[caspian]

Yeah, but what kind of world would you be bringing them into? I would have a pretty low opinion of my parents if I thought they'd brought me into the world despite their believing that it was all going to go titsup. That would suggest a certain degree of ill-will towards me.

[Prokopton]

I'm pointing out that's Kant's ethical maxim is based entirely on a philosophical argument and requires no religion. You don't have to be religious to have this as the foundation of what you think is the right way to behave.

Exactly, or loads of other ethical approaches. You simply have to be convinced.

We talk about ethics here all the time. How to survive when society is falling itself is an ethical matter.

[Ludwig]

I'm pointing out that's Kant's ethical maxim is based entirely on a philosophical argument and requires no religion. You don't have to be religious to have this as the foundation of what you think is the right way to behave.

Exactly, or loads of other ethical approaches. You simply have to be convinced.

We talk about ethics here all the time. How to survive when society is falling itself is an ethical matter.

No it's not, it's a practical matter.

I'm not arguing that there are no such things as personal ethics and conscience. I'm saying that these have no absolute validity: if I feel guilty about behaving in a certain way, it's either because society condemns me for it, or because I'm aware of the suffering I've caused. But even the latter is not an ethical matter; it's a question of temperament.

There are plenty of people who would torture, kill or rape another human being at the drop of a hat, with no feelings of guilt whatsoever.

Aggression and sadistic pleasure in making others suffer are ingrained into human nature, because evolutionarily those who had those traits possessed an advantage over those who didn't.

There is no absolute morality, there is only whatever leads to survival.